Rettoper will be arguing in the affirmative I will be arguing in the negative. First of all let’s define our terms. Mises defines the state as “the apparatus of social coercion and compulsion.” (Human Action, Chapter 27, Section 3.) Now anarchism does not mean the absence of coercion and compulsion. Nearly all anarcho-capitalists recognize the need to enforce property rights with violence if necessary. I believe what sets anarchism apart is its call to have no territorial monopolies of social coercion and compulsion, and its proposition that the enforcement of private property claims can be produced by a market. Retopper, do you accept these definitions of “state” and “anarchism”?
[SORRY ZACHARY, I FORGOT TO EXPRESS IN THE OP, THIS IS A PRIVATE DEBATE, SET UP TO TO SHORT-CIRCUIT THE ACRIMONY THAT WAS OCCURRING IN ANOTHER THREAD. TO AVOID THAT ACRIMONY SPILLING INTO HERE, I ASK THAT NOBODY ELSE POST IN HERE. PEOPLE ARE WELCOME TO PM CORRECTIONS AND ADVICE TO EITHER RETOPPER OR ME. -LILBURNE)
note that an anarchist society does not exist within a greater statist framework. for example, you cant argue for the efficacy of an anarchic system if it is imbedded within any kind of statist framework.
IMHO, that is not an example of a viable and vibrant anarchic society.
For example, anarchism means existence in the absence of any statist influence, benevolence, or coercion.
moreover, I acknowledge that anarchist societies have existed in tiny, scattered, irrelevent, and isolated enclaves of no strategic signifcance. however, good luck arguing this as evidence of the “efficacy” of anarchism
The question we are considering is whether anarchism is disproved by history, not whether it is proved by history.
Moreover, define “disproved”
for example, in previous posts, I posited that anarchism would have a chance of realization within a geopolitic of representative democracies who would be inclined toward benevolence toward a free market enclave.
in that example, history has indeed not disproved the viability of anarchism. for example, I have repeatedly cited the utility of democratic peace theory in promoting peace, prosperity, freedom, and stability among like minded democracies, including any anarchic societies that might emerge.
in contrast, I have repeatedly stated that in a geopolitik dotted with autocratic regimes, the prospects for anarchic enclaves has been and would remain dismal.
“Moreover, define “disproved””
I would say for anarcho-capitalism to be disproved would be for it to be shown that anarcho-capitalism is not feasible or would produce conditions that almost nobody would want to live in.
Since you admit that anarchic societies are feasible in small enclaves, let us extend the question to this: “The feasibility and/or desirability of a world-embracing anarcho-capitalism has been shown by history to be impossible.” You in the affirmative. Me in the negative. Do you accept?
Also Zachary was right to correct me that, under Anarcho-capitalism, the protection of private property need not be provided in the market nexus (meaning it need not be exchanged for money), but can be provided for in non-catallactic exchanges.
The question we are considering is whether anarchism is disproved by history, not whether it is proved by history.-- grayson
disproved?
my point was that history has shown that anarchic societies have not been sustainable, period. I further specified that this could be corrected by the promotion of global representative governance that would provide a geopolitik that would be more amendable to the emergence of anarchic societies. (democratic peace theory)
in contrast, in a previous thread (before being banned) I argued that the best way to achieve an anarchist ideal was by a measured transistion from statism, to representative democracy, to anarchism.
you see this is part of the problem I have experienced with some isolated contributors, namely tunnel vision. any criticism of anarchism, no matter how rational, measured, and objective is met with invective, vitriol, and accusations of being a statist.
an example of tunnel vision just this evening:
I posted this on page 6 of a thread:
these founders recognized the defects in the Constitution and they attempted to forestall or prevent the likely progression toward more statist abuses by installing substantive checks and balances on the power of the statists to subvert the system. – rettoper
on page 6 of the same thread, a contributor posted this:
You always have ignored our charge that minarchism devolves into collectivism.-- snowflake
on page 6 of a thread, I was criticized for the following:
It means that instead of simply stating your conclusions, you need to actually argue for them.
Here is an example of your tactics: “The government is evil and unsustainable. Rettoper fantasizes that it is, but he’s actually wrong. He doesn’t realize that government is stupid and will never work”
See. This is just mouthing off. I’m not proving anything. Thats a “baseless assertion”. When I call you out for doing it, it means you need to go back and actually argue.–snowflake
then in the same post, this contributor offers the following retort and nothing else to support this assertion:
Exactly. We have nice stuff in SPITE of the constitution, not because of it.-- snowflake
do you see a double standard?
disproved?
I used the word “disproved” when I challenged you to this debate, and you agreed to it.
“my point was that history has shown that anarchic societies have not been sustainable, period.”
Chronology has shown that anarchic societies have not lasted forever. It does not follow from that that the anarchic nature of those societies was the prime factor in their eventual demise.
Almost everything else you wrote in your last post is outside of the scope of this debate.
[PLEASE SEE THE SECOND POST IN THIS THREAD]
Chronology has shown that anarchic societies have not lasted forever. It does not follow from that that the anarchic nature of those societies was the prime factor in their eventual demise.-- grayson
history has indeed condemned anarchism to the ash heap of history, so far.
True, it is not proven that the nature of anarchic society was the prime factor for their demise.
Indeed, I will go further and assert that in a vacuum – anarchic societies would not only survive, they would prosper to a far greater extent than any previous system, even representative democracies!
Alas, we dont live in a vacuum of benevolent, prosperous, and free anarchic enclaves. And to make assumptions and develop theories on social experiments that discount this fact is folly.
history has indeed condemned anarchism to the ash heap of history, so far.
True, it is not proven that the nature of anarchic society was the prime factor for their demise.
These two sentences of yours above contradict each other.
Indeed, I will go further and assert that in a vacuum – anarchic societies would not only survive, they would prosper to a far greater extent than any previous system, even representative democracies!
A world-embracing anarchic society would be “in a vacuum”, so to speak. So it would seem then, in light of your sentence above, that you disagree with the proposition: "“The feasibility and/or desirability of a world-embracing anarcho-capitalism has been shown by history to be impossible.” If that is the case, that means you accept that: (1) anarcho-capitalism can work in enclaves AND (2) anarcho-capitalism can work as a world system. Is that correct?
history has indeed condemned anarchism to the ash heap of history, so far.
True, it is not proven that the nature of anarchic society was the prime factor for their demise. --rettoper
how is the fact that anarchy has failed absmally to establish itself over thousands of years and my agreement with you that “it is not proven” what the causal mechanism for this failure a contradiction?
and Yes, IMHO, if an global anarchic system was to magically metastasize over the entire globe in the absence of statist regimes, then yes I believe it would be viable, for a time.
however, I think we need to establish that we live in the real world. for example, one of the tenets of my argument on why anarchist societies are not viable is not based on their efficacy to provide freedoms and wealth in a vacuum, it was based on the real threat from autocratic forces in the real world.
Moreover, could you state unequivocally that if an anarchic system was established could it exist forever? Since all human systems have lurched toward absolutism (anarchist definition) than how can anarchists suddenly change their tune and presume that their favored system would not devolve into a more statist system like all others have?
more specifically, human beings would not magically and genetically mutate from brute statists that they have been throughout history to benevolent free marketeers just because their environment changed. Humans have always exhibited certain traits (greed, avarice, jeolousy, envy, pride, et al) that may be anathema to the permanent establishment of an anarchic society.
I dont think you can claim that anarcho-capitalism is present when it “exists” within a statist framework. I agree with the retort from many anarchists who posit that this is a ruse that statists use to placate the masses into thinking that they are free when in reality the statist pulls all of the strings. If this is your ideal of an anarchic society it is not a convincing one when it exists or dies on the whim of the statist landlord.
caveat:
before we can even begin to consider if an anarchic system is viable once established, in the real world nonetheless.
A necessary precursor would be “can an anarchic system establish and sustain itself, in the real world”
For example, before you can start training to beat Bolt in the 100m, we need to determine if you can walk across the room.
“how is the fact that anarchy has failed absmally to establish itself over thousands of years and my agreement with you that “it is not proven” what the causal mechanism for this failure a contradiction?”
Because when you say that “anarchy has failed abysmally” you are saying that those societies have failed BY VIRTUE of being anarchist. That is contradicted when you say that anarchism may not be the prime factor in the demise of those societies.
“however, I think we need to establish that we live in the real world. for example, one of the tenets of my argument on why anarchist societies are not viable is not based on their efficacy to provide freedoms and wealth in a vacuum, it was based on the real threat from autocratic forces in the real world.”
Alright then, since you are in basic agreement with anarcho-capitalists with regard to the previous propositions, how about this: “History has proven that enclaves of anarcho-capitalism cannot survive for long given the existence of non-anarcho-capitalist societies.” You in the affirmative. Me in the negative. How’s that? To have an actual debate, it would be good if we could settle on a single question to consider, as opposed to a general range of misgivings about “the other side”.
“Because when you say that “anarchy has failed abysmally” you are saying that those societies have failed BY VIRTUE of being anarchist. That is contradicted when you say that anarchism may not be the prime factor in the demise of those societies.”–grayson
fair enough, let me clarify – anarchic states have been subject to plunder and predation throughout history. Sadly because they were tiny and did not have the means to defend themselves. However, they did fight valiantly and effectively until they were sacked. I believe others were simply absorbed or annexed by both public and private entities over time.
In summary, I acknowledge that no internal collapse occurred, for example I havent read any evidence of anarchic societies imploding in the absence of external threats. Of course, most dont last more than a few years on the average, but some have lasted for hundreds of years. although these were not exposed to competition or predation from contiguous states since they were scattered in isolated geographically insignificant locales.
However, even the most absolutist of regimes have shown that they can survive indefinitely in the absence of competition.
I guess I could be more specific. For example, “since 1776, capitalist-anarcho societies been generated less wealth and technological advances than those created within representative democracies” or “since the beginning of civilization less people have lived within anarcho-capitalist societies than communist states” or “anarcho-capitalist societies have had a lower “life expectancy” than monarchism, democracy, absolutism, et al”
“History has proven that enclaves of anarcho-capitalism cannot survive for long given the existence of non-anarcho-capitalist societies.” You in the affirmative.-- grayson
I think my statement above answers your question. I will qualify it was a caveat that it is possible for an isolated anarcho-capitaist state to prosper under the benevolent wing of an autocratic neighbor. For example, hong kong (while no anarcho society) is still a capitalist enclave contiguous to china that is tolerated. However, history has shown these temporary symbiotic relationships usually go badly for the anarchist enclave if their usefulness as a market is overshaded by political and miitary considerations.
For example, “since 1776, capitalist-anarcho societies been generated less wealth and technological advances than those created within representative democracies” or “since the beginning of civilization less people have lived within anarcho-capitalist societies than communist states” or “anarcho-capitalist societies have had a lower “life expectancy” than monarchism, democracy, absolutism, et al”
In order for the debate to have a practical bent, let us not restrict the debate to mere questions of what happened in the past, but rather what that implies to you about the future (especially how exactly to you anarcho-capitalism is a “pipe dream”). So instead of just “X happened in the past”, please add something like “therefore Y will happen (or not happen) in the future”.
one question, before I take care of business in the “meat world”
please give examples of past anarchic societies. I made the assumption that some did exist based on statements from anarchists on various threads. However, I didnt verify whether these enclaves were really anarcho-capitalist. In addition, they were cited from wikipedia ( a habit of many anarchists) which is not a source I trust without verification. For example, my 5 year old has routinely edited sources in wikipedia.
My position is that historical episodes can neither prove nor disprove anything about the future. Whether pockets of anarcho-capitalism have existed in the past or not has no bearing on my position that you have in no way shown that anarcho-capitalism is a “pipe dream”. If you would like to marshal historical episodes for your position, you are free to research them.
"In order for the debate to have a practical bent, let us not restrict the debate to mere questions of what happened in the past, but rather what that implies to you about the future (especially how exactly to you anarcho-capitalism is a “pipe dream”). So instead of just “X happened in the past”, please add something like “therefore Y will happen (or not happen) in the future”
Anarcho-capitalism is a pipe dream because of the following:
(1) difficult to establish because of the predominance of statist influences. for example, even anarchists acknowledge that statism is not going to give up power voluntarily. and ancaps have lamented that statism is growing.
(2) since power wont be surrendered by statists and their cronies voluntarily, it must be taken by coercion. For example, anarchists are of the opinion that they can “educate” the masses to the benefits of anarchism – however, do they believe that statist will volutarily surrender the reins of information and communication. For example, do they think that the statists will surrender the monopoly of education without a fight?
(3) when statist regimes do collapse – what guarantee do ancaps have that they will be the fortunate ideologues to fill the void when they hold little sway among the masses today. Indeed, less than 1% of the citizenry even knows what an ancap is. history has shown that the void held by statist regimes is usually filled by… you guessed it…another statist regime. for example, what is different today than what has existed for thousands of years?
(4) virtually every nation has been created by force or conflict usually by destroying the previous power structure— since ancaps are pacific by nature they are less likely to gain power in this manner.
this is the short list on why it is unlikely that ancaps will gain power.
Now the short list on why they cannot retain power once they achieve it:
(1) ancaps reject preventative and preemptive war which is a necessity in a world increasingly dominated by weaponry that can deliver a survival level attack in minutes.
(2) ancaps reject WMD’s including nuclear weaponry. for example, ancaps would be far less inclined to use or threaten to use nuclear weaponry that has a demonstrated utility to deter predation and attack on those that possess it.
(3) ancap society is decentralized as a result it is less able to focus decisive concentrated applications of force in military conflicts. for example, an autocratic nation has centralized control of the means to wage war – in contrast, ancaps power is dispersed. Military doctrine has generally shown that fast and concentrated applications of power are the most effective and decisive way to defeat a foe. this axiom combined with the ancap revulsion to use preemptive attacks significantly impacts their abiilty to defend themselves.
(4) ancaps depend exclusively on private for profit mercenaries for their defense. History is chock full of examples of mercenary armies failing their clients in decisive conflicts. Why? what is the utility of dying if you are engaged in a for profit activity? for example, mercenaries are in it for the money, not sacrifice – yet all conflict demands instances of sacrifice to accomplish mission objectives, it is the nature of war. mercenaries will not risk death to accomplish the objectives of ancaps.
(5) ancaps can be undermined by the highest bidder. for example, the ancap mercenary army can be bought off by a consortium of autocratic states that pool resources. why wouldnt a mercenary army simply transfer allegiance to the highest bidder, especially when the former client is likely to become extinct by the new client. ancaps depending on the “sanctity” of contracts in the threat of predation from autocratic armies will be tragically disappointed.
(6) would ancaps authorize the bombing of industrial centers in populated areas to reduce the war making capability of the enemy. based on what I have read, they may not have the will to do so. as a result, the half measures used by ancap forces would more likely lead to their demise at the hands of more violent and less humane fighters on the autocrats side. for example, autocrats would employ whatever means were available to reduce the ancap ability to defend itself irrespective of how many civilians were killed.
(7) ancap societies would invite predation. first their pacifism invites predation. second, their prosperity invites predation. and third, the threat that the example of ancap society represents to statists is a survival level threat. for example, statists will never allow ancap societies to reach “critical mass” of getting too large that they cant be destroyed – because to do so would hasten the end of the statist’s power. while they tolerate tiny isolated ancap enclaves, they would crush these same enclaves if they got to big.
this is the short list.
later.